That made me chuckle. However it seems to go against the premise of your argument. Kill more to prevent the killing of one? I’m afraid there is no good solution. Maybe neuralink will one day allow us to read the memories of those accused for definite convictions.
You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.
And even then I’m not sure “I would literally stake my life on it” is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else’s life on it and not their own.
That made me chuckle. However it seems to go against the premise of your argument. Kill more to prevent the killing of one? I’m afraid there is no good solution. Maybe neuralink will one day allow us to read the memories of those accused for definite convictions.
You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.
And even then I’m not sure “I would literally stake my life on it” is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else’s life on it and not their own.
I can understand what you are getting at. Ideally, the burden of proof should be absolute. If not then the death penalty should be off the table.